Talk:SlutWalk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Feminism (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Canada / Ontario / Toronto (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Ontario.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Toronto (marked as Low-importance).
 


POV[edit]

This article at its core violates WP:NPOV and would need to be completely rewritten to achieve NPOV. While on a personal level I appreciate the cause this "slut walk" is undertaking, "Wikipedia is not a venue for raising the visibility of an issue or agenda". —KuyaBriBriTalk 14:54, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I removed the OR, coatracky and essay-like stuff. I believe this article is about a notable social movement and can be saved. Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Repurposing some of the text[edit]

While there were some stylistic problems (see WP:ESSAY and WP:NPOV), some of the material formerly on this page could be repurposed at Motivation for rape, Rape culture, and similar articles.--Carwil (talk) 11:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion[edit]

I don't think the article should be deleted. At least not yet. As Steven Paikin of TVO discusses (http://feeds.tvo.org/~r/TheAgendaWithStevePaikin/~3/PMls2gHxF5s/1929003_48k.mp3), the protest may have wider repercussions, and may have laid the seeds for a new form of protest in the global scale. If it does not, then it can be deleted, but some time is needed to have the benefit of hindsight.--Eleman (talk) 14:37, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


On July 16, 2011, about 50 people rallied for India's first Slutwalk, called Slutwalk arthaat Besharmi Morcha.[18][19] Rita Banerji, Indian feminist and author reports that SlutWalk was criticised as irrelevant in the face of female feticide, infanticide, dowry murders and honor killings. She argues: "The issue at the crux of the SlutWalk is one and the same as for all the other above mentioned afflictions. It is about the recognition of women as individuals with certain fundamental rights, including that of safety and personal choices, which no one, not even the family, can violate."[20]


This page needs to be deleted , citations are too few.

Who is Rita Banerjee, we don't know any body in Kolkata , why has she got a page? Slut walk is a small insignificant rally in kolkata MithulGhosh (talk) 07:20, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Rita Banerji would be the appropriate place to dispute Rita Banerji's significance. Slutwalks are not a single insignificant rally on Kolkata, they've been in cities on almost every continent, and we have included reliable sources in the article to support that. PraetorianFury (talk) 20:40, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Wow, a huge wiki article for such a non-entity. Can I write a few books and then get wikipedians to write an essay length article on me too?Oxr033 (talk) 02:10, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
If that book receives lots of mainstream coverage, yes. PraetorianFury (talk) 16:14, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

External links[edit]

Most of these External links should be used as proper citations in the article; the External links should just have a couple links to homepages.

Currently, all references are bare URLs, and that needs to change. {Heroeswithmetaphors talk} 21:04, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Here are TOOMANYLINKS. They should be properly formatted and used as citations.

{Heroeswithmetaphors talk} 21:53, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Re structuring of page[edit]

I have begun editing the SlutWalk page as things have moved on considerably and the page looks very out of date. I have changed a lot of the text to put it in the past tense, removing statements made in the future tense.

I note that the original Table of Contents reflects a focus on the original march and I am wondering whether with everything now written (particularly in our local Australian media on the pros and cons of the SlutWalk concept and march whether the page sections should be re-titled to reflect a different focus? I have added a section for criticism. There are already comments made in the first paragraph at the top of the page specific to the original Toronto march and then there is a separate section devoted to it below. I am wondering whether it would be more appropriate to delete or merge this information? Page structure suggestions welcome.Writerose (talk) 06:36, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I note that there has been a template added to this page claiming that synthesis of public material has been made without sources and pointing editors to this page. Unfortunately there is no explanation here of what is being questioned on the page and no way to assess the validity and breadth of the template and its criticisms. Perhaps someone can remove the template given there is no way to address it as it is not clear to what in the article it applies?

I removed the citation required template from the statement that SlutWalk 'has generated grassroots support'. I believe that the thousands of people attending rallies across the globe constitutes grassroots support and do not appreciate having citation templates placed on basic facts. If an editor has a contrary view I suggest they insert it with appropriate referencing rather than questioning an obvious fact.Writerose (talk) 10:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

But that's Original Research. You see thousands attending rallies across the globe--and you CONCLUDE grassroots support. It's not a basic fact; it's a conclusion. And even if it were a basic fact, it could still use a citation so as not to be simply stating what you've observed. 140.147.236.195 (talk) 12:58, 24 August 2011 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza

Leave in the incident with Justice Robert Dewar, it was the other contributing factor and honestly a lot worse than the dumb cop. LamontCranston (talk) 08:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

But leaving it in because "this was dumb" or "that was a lot worse" at least assumes a consensus on what is in fact a matter of opinion. My opinion is that the police officer only spoke common sense, and his remarks no more blame the victim than suggesting that someone who got robbed shouldn't have set down his wallet on the bar and turned his back; no, he shouldn't have, but the only wrong committed was the other person picking up the wallet. I think this distinction is commonly recognized, and the police officer's statement wouldn't have been an issue if it wasn't specially associated with women. You think it should be in because it was "dumb." That implies an agenda to push your view, rather than simply recording a phenomenon. My own view is that it was not "dumb." Which would suggest removing it. See the problem? But there it does seem that the phenomenon was sparked by the officer's remark. 140.147.236.195 (talk) 12:55, 24 August 2011 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza

Justice Dewar material[edit]

I believe the material LamontCranston wishes to include in this article must be shown to have direct relevance to the SlutWalk movement. Otherwise, we could insert material on any number of rape cases which appear to blame the victim. If the dispute had its own page, it might be relevant as a "see also." Hyper3 (talk) 15:36, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Is it not an incident along with the cops footinmouth that sparked it? It was my understanding that it was, certainly happened soon after. LamontCranston (talk) 21:42, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Well, that's assuming that the police officer's statement was a case of "foot in mouth," which I don't buy. What that police officer said was equivalent to suggesting that you should keep your valuables hidden when out walking at night, so you don't get clobbered for them. That's in no way blaming the victim, and the police officer's statement would never have been controversial if the issue hadn't been one that particularly concerns women. 140.147.236.195 (talk) 12:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza

POV issues[edit]

There are a number of issues with this page. To be specific, it's built around the criticism (the "debate" section is exclusively criticism), as if that's the central focus of the topic, rather than simply presenting the phenomenon as it is and presenting both sides in the discussion for what they are. A key example is, in the introduction it says "Some objectors have remarked that this approach is an example of women defining their sexuality in male terms," yet in contradiction, the "debate" section starts off with the views of two men defining SlutWalk. I'm willing to work on this when I have a moment, but I wanted to note these things for reference. WallyCuddeford (talk) 10:14, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with your assertion that the the "debate" section is exclusively criticism. It is a totally unbalanced "debate" with no positive assertions and no responses to the arguments of the numerous "traditional feminists" who have queued up to bash SlutWalk. I don't know enough about the subject to fix this imbalance, but as it stands it this article is POV riddled and hardly worthy content for an encyclopedia. King of the North East 10:28, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
I've removed the npov tag, because its just ridiculous - the point of the section is to list the different ways people have replied to the SlutWalk phenomenon. The SlutWalk description comes in the previous section, and overall, it balances out well: the article describes what SlutWalk is, and then describes what commentators and scholars have observed. The people listed wouldn't agree with each other over why they disagree... All of it is sourced and footnoted. If you wish to introduce well sourced additional material that for example, presents a reply to these comments, go ahead and do it. Don't just introduce your pro-SlutWalk bias with an unsubstantiated banner - do the work you think needs doing! Hyper3 (talk) 13:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
In your own words "the point of the section is to list the different ways people have replied to the SlutWalk phenomenon". In this it has utterly failed as it only reports unrelentingly negative coverage (including from Rod Liddle, a misogynist who used his newspaper column to call his ex-wife and the mother of his two kids a slut). I've changed the section header to "Criticism", if you are going to change it back to "Debate" again please ensure that you add some actual balance to the "debate" by adding some positive coverage. Thanks King of the North East 15:10, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Paragraph 1: SlutWalk phenomenon described: reasons for it given. Notability accepted. Paragraph 2: the response by reporters, scholars, politicians. Both sides balanced, npov! The debate section doesn't have much pro-SW in it, the description section doesn't have much anti-SW. What is the problem?Hyper3 (talk) 14:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
As for your accusations of "pro-SlutWalk bias" simply for complaining that a debate section contains nothing even resembling debate, perhaps you should grow up and stop slinging insults. It's this kind of poisonous mentality that stopped me from being a regular contributor here and it crops up virtually every time I pop back for a visit. Perhaps if people like you weren't so insulting and quick to delete things, I'd still make the time to do the work you think I should be doing. King of the North East 15:10, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
By all means add any responses that exist to the comments currently found in the debate section. I am perfectly in favour of that. I am sorry for being over combative. please accept my apology and help make this a better article. I have been crossing swords with the people you speak of too often myself, and replied myself in an ill-disciplined way. Hyper3 (talk) 14:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

It seems that there is an over-abundance of criticism on this page without an equal amount of support--best shown by the fact that the two quotations brought out of the main body of the text are criticisms. While they may be valid, why are there no quotations of SlutWalk supporters highlighted in this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.100.102 (talk) 00:33, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, telling the story of why the Slutwalk phenomenon emerged, what happened and why has about equal space to those responses that are not positive. NPOV requires that the debate is reflected, not that equal airtime be given to both sides: see WP:DUE (should flat-earthers have equal time with round earthers?) But please, find verifiable quotes to bring in more voices that are pro-SlutWalk if you think the balance needs to be righted - this is all about the wisdom of crowds! Hyper3 (talk) 08:06, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Punctuation in or out of quotes?[edit]

According to both the Wiki manual of style and several online resources:

Correct usage in British English is to have the punctuation outside the quotation marks. So I've reverted again to the correct wp:engvar usage. Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:52, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

In British usage there are two approaches see here, bottom of page called the "logical view" and the "conventional view." What Americans think the British do is not so interesting to me! But actually, you are correct for a different reason: Wikipedia has a standard view that abrogates this, always going with the logical approach - see MOS:LQ. Sigh. You had me going there. I thought I had to redo all the quotes in my PhD. By the way, I've proposed a compromise.... Hyper3 (talk) 20:51, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
The problem here is that what we are arguing over is not a quote in the true sense of the word, hence there is no punctuation to come after it. If this was a from a person, then it would be easier to define, but it isn't - it's using the quotes to draw attention to the definition of the word - in this case "slut". Not "slut."
Personally, I am always interested in what the Americans think the British do, just as I am interested in what the Afrikaans, rench and Japanese think the British do. Vive La Difference, to paraphrase. And I am correct because in this case that's the way it is, not just because of Wikipedia's policy - I think that if you are quoting people, then it's up to you, but if you are using quotes to emphasise words, then yes - you do need to revisit your PhD. Good luck with that. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:15, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
As long as I use the "conventional view" systematically, I can always put the punctuation inside the quotation marks - which is how the majority do it here. (But not on wikipedia, it seems!) Hyper3 (talk) 09:54, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
PS: With regard to your compromise, that cannot be either. You cannot point out that my preferred version is correct because it is supported by the Manual of Style, then go against it by editing in something completely different. I have suggested a different compromise which in fact does away with the quotes entirely. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:31, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Sorry about the bad attempt at wiki humour! Your version is correct according to the MOS. Hyper3 (talk) 08:30, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

interview?[edit]

I read an interview with the woman who started Slutwalk and was very surprised. She is not a sexual assault survivor and instead was unhappy about the police officers use of the word slut, because she said she slept with a lot of people in high school and was called a slut for it. This SHOULD be mentioned in the article, since this woman (who is NOT a sexual assault survivor)is now heading up a movement that claims to speak for sexual assault survivors. This movement is very offensive to many survivors (elderly, conservative or just not young, hip feminists) and the critique section should reflect this. Also, rape is not a feminist issue, it is a violent crime. Not all rape victims are feminists or support feminism.(65.128.119.250 (talk) 17:18, 26 September 2012 (UTC))

Where did you read it? we need that to add the material. Hyper3 (talk) 09:11, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

"a movement of rallies across the world"[edit]

The source for this statement...

The SlutWalk protest marches began on April 3, 2011 in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, and became a movement of rallies across the world..[1]

...says this...

The group of about 3000 women and men, and a few children, who congregated at the State Library yesterday in support of the worldwide movement looked both sexy and chaste, radical and conservative.

It does not say that there have been rallies around the world. It only says the movement is worldwide. Which I think is pretty suspect. I could probably find a more significant "worldwide movement" for Star Wars than for the Slutwalks. As far as I can tell, outside of a couple cities in the Canada, and a few in the US, there is nothing but a bunch of twitter and facebook pages proposing rallies. I have found no evidence of rallies outside of 3 countries: US, Canada, and India (the Indian one was very watered down, is my understanding).

So, I have done more research than is required of me to justify rewording this content in a more objective way. The WP:ONUS is now on you to provide reliable sources establishing that this indeed a worldwide movement of rallies, and not a handful of twitter accounts.

Don't get me wrong, I would love to think that this was a worldwide sexual revolution, but what I've been able to dig up just does not support that idea. The fact that this article relies so heavily on primary sources suggests that it is more promotion than actual fact. Unfortunately, promotion is not what we do on Wikipedia. We report the facts in perspective. Reading this made it seem like Slutwalks are more significant than the Arab Spring, which is clearly not the case. PraetorianFury (talk) 18:36, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Take two

And we're back to this, I think it's funny that this same issue that I brought up in January is still being fought over with 0 comments by involved editors besides myself. I'm reverting this to the more conservative statement of 3 countries again, and here is why the onus is not on me to find source stating that the rallies happened in 3 countries. You can't prove a negative. Sources will not say that "a slutwalk rally did NOT occur in this country". Let's take a look at WP:ONUS and how it works, shall we?

Sometimes editors will disagree on whether material is verifiable. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material

The source in question is clearly promotional, so I am disputing its reliability for the claim that slutwalks are a "global movement" of rallies. Thus the onus is on YOU to establish that it is indeed a global movement of rallies. Your behavior thus far has been blatantly aggressive. You have contributed 0 sources, you have not commented on the talk page, and don't think I didn't notice your attempt to wait for me to leave the article. If you're editing in good faith, asking for additional sources is the smallest burden possible. Google this and see if you can find rallies outside of the US and Canada (and one in India). You won't find any, because none exist. Prove me wrong, please. I'd love for Slutwalks to be a global thing, as I said before. I'm not trying to diminish the accomplishments of feminist activists, but we do need a healthy dose of skepticism on Wikipedia. We should provide an accurate picture of reality, and if these protests have mostly happened in countries where women are already comparatively empowered, that is what we should say to our readers.

Sigh[edit]

The first three capitals I googled. I really don’t understand what the problem is here. Do you concede Europe? Before I go on... Hyper3 (talk) 22:28, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

more[edit]

Well this is not how I googled. I just googled "slutwalk" and scrolled down the first few pages of results, and the only countries I found with that method were what I mentioned. Call me a poor googler if you wish, but it was at least a good faith attempt. I've restored the word "globally" and I think I'll take a few minutes to create a list of cities that have held rallies. Your sources leave something to be desired but it is a good enough starting point that I know what to look for and can find some WP:RSs. I told you I was working in good faith :p — Preceding unsigned comment added by PraetorianFury (talkcontribs) 22:51, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

still more[edit]

Wow, I did not expect Chinese would take part in these rallies. Impressive. PraetorianFury (talk) 23:21, 28 March 2013 (UTC)


FYI, we're still missing Africa. And technically the Middle East is its own cultural zone, but I really doubt this would happen there. PraetorianFury (talk) 23:23, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Originally, there was a list of Slutwalks, and it was taken out because of WP:LAUNDRY. Could you read this and come back to me with your comments? Hyper3 (talk) 23:27, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
It's a project, not a policy. And the list "guidelines" they mention is an essay, not a policy. There's nothing definitive here to deny having a list of Slutwalks that I can see. Just a few editors who collected at one point to try to remove lists, but who are no longer participating in that project, if the template on that page is any indication. In any case, consensus on the page is more important than anything else. And WP:IGNORE gives us great freedom if we choose to apply it. I think in some way, we should indicate all the many places that Slutwalks have taken place, for exactly the same reason I was removing the global bit. We need to prove that it is truly something with global scope. A list might not be the best way, but perfection is not required, and perhaps it could be a launching point for a better solution later. PraetorianFury (talk) 15:20, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
It is hard to get good reliable footnotes for this sort of thing, especially an exhaustive list. I have tried to make this page as trustworthy as possible. I happen to agree with WP:Laundry though I understand you might not find it that persuasive. If you would like to illustrate "global" with references to particular places that it has happened, then I would prefer prose. Any objection? Hyper3 (talk) 16:59, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
The sources I've included in the article are considered reliable, I believe. Here are some for Hong Kong: [3], Singapore [4], and Finland [5]. We've got the sources (excluding France, might be worthwhile to try to find a French speaker to look for one), we're just lacking the text. I would be concerned with removing the list without any replacement. The article relies heavily on primary sources, which is normally bad form that you only see in biased/one-sided, low-traffic articles. I see this often while browsing the fringes of Wikipedia, an editor will exaggerate the scope of their personal hobby or other passion. This was the reason for my skepticism. Having definitive proof of Slutwalk's pervasiveness I think really enhances the article. What I'd like to see is something like Legality of cannabis by country or Use of capital punishment by country. I don't know that there's enough material to justify an article split, which is why I think it should go here. PraetorianFury (talk) 17:27, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
So in the mean time,prose is acceptable. Hyper3 (talk) 10:02, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
That's a fair compromise. PraetorianFury (talk) 17:56, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo ≠ non-Western[edit]

I will state my reasons to why I changed information there.

People here go to high schools and Universities (heavily influenced by many kinds of Western ideology you can think of, and frankly speaking, compared to developed countries and even Spanish-speaking countries, or Portugal – a place the average en-wikipedia editor knows little about –, southeastern Brazilian education is pretty much a factory of communism, only those areas related to economy and enterpreneurism revile left-wing ideologies and socioeconomic policies), have low fertilities (actually Brazil is under the replacement level for some time, especially the 5 southernmost states with more money, higher quality of life and over 52% of self-reported white people in censuses that AFAIK will start to experience natural population decline this decade if they aren't already), and many more (you can see the Brazilian maps on our socioeconomic indicators here and here, for example), one can argue to say that makes militant left-wing Latino opinions on how our part of the global south is subject to the imperialism of Western identity politics at least inappropriate or misquoted. Is there Western misrepresentation of Brazilian realities? Yes. But does the imagery Americans having of gender violence including mestizo men something to do with our place in SlutWalk (what the articles seemed to talk about, idk anymore, it was kinda irrelevant so tl;dr)? No.

Actually, citing Brazil and Honduras on the same line (a hugely wrong thing given the major differences between a poor highly indebted small-sized Spanish-speaking Central American place and middle income emergert big-and-diverse Portuguese-speaking South America) had nothing to do with what the source meant, what is obviously worse than a person that is native to Portuguese and learning Spanish since 7 or 8 (that was regarded as a genius for hyperlexia when 2-5, it doesn't matter as Portuguese and Spanish differ largely by our France-influenced and their post-Basque-Leonese-creole vocabulary and phonology though grammar is almost the same and we got the much more complex syntax, but just saying) explaining Ibero-American culture/language especially when his point is illustrated by a wiki article in itself (machismo was also good before some IP appeared, put a lot of bad styled though sourced information and flied away).

Also since it repeats stereotypes that Latin America has a monolithic culture (when the culture of rich, metropolitan, white Brazil, that present in such kinds of movement in the same way we see mostly middle-and-upper-class, urban, white North America, this version at least is based in that of 2 centuries ago Portugal, with a stronger flavor of Western Europe and globalization much as the modern Portugal, so certainly closer to that of a European country than to its more distant poor neighbors), that doesn't change with time and that shouldn't be influenced by external forces, a reasoning that I find idiotic even for our indigenous peoples, imagine for us that were affected by multiple foreign urban youth subcultures and music genres, had our tons of different political and social movements, and are even legalizing same-sex marriage before most of North America and Europe, but still have a culture where men should have to prove their "natural place" since the very start of puberty, sometimes even before, for the fear of [mainly] being labeled as queer, and perfect women are idealized as "saints", while those that are sexually liberated are named "whores". A paradigm that is also present in many other regions of the world, and feminism answers this!

I'm not saying that the sources don't have nice points. Just that this global south thing presented by the Wikipedia article was misplaced and unsourced, it confused two very different cultures into a same pot of "Hispanic", while my adds are quite reasonable and obvious. I thought it was polite to clarify. Lguipontes (talk) 07:21, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

It seems vadi@ (tramp for both men and women, slut more often than whore for women) and vagabund@ (vagabond/hooligan/punk for both men and women, the same meaning for women) are pretty coherent Portuguese translations. I used only the usual first terms, I thought the sexist ones were merely mischaracterized translations of seldom obscene terms. I was raised in an environment without female-negativity and sex-negativity but where unpolite attitudes such as obscene language were hugely shun, from 13 ½ I wasn't welcomed in male-only groups and from 14 ¾ I didn't had IRL male close friends (for various reasons), the first coincided with me coming out of the closet, so it's natural I knew those only in porn.
But their sexist usage seems to be clearly inherent and current: http://www.dicionarioinformal.com.br/vadia/ http://www.dicionarioinformal.com.br/vagabunda/ so the claim that Portuguese lacks specific terms for slut also goes down water. Lguipontes (talk) 08:31, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
A few things. First of all, you seems to have the wrong idea about what we do here. It seems you're very well read on gender issues in Brazil and South America, and that's great. But even with the expertise that you have, we can't accept your original research in the article. Everything that is included must come from reliable sources. Whether or not I agree with your assessment doesn't matter. What I have seen so far are 0 sources provided to support the information that you want included. This is potentially controversial material, so it absolutely must have good sourcing. And the onus is on you to provide them. Until those sources are provided, the material needs to stay out.
You said that, "this global south thing presented by the Wikipedia article was misplaced and unsourced". This is what the source says:

"According to SlutWalk’s website, the event is slated to be reproduced in Argentina sometime this year. It’s the country I was born and raised in, among Spanish, Guaraní and Portuguese speakers – and I can assure you that the word “slut” is not used by anyone there. This is not what we need. I do not want white English-speaking Global North women telling Spanish-speaking Global South women to “reclaim” a word that is foreign to our own vocabulary. To do so would be hegemonic, and would illustrate the ways in which Global North “feminists” have become a tool of cultural imperialism. I will be going back home in about a month, and want to do so without feeling the power of white women bearing down on me from 6,000 miles away. We’ve got our own issues to deal with in South America; we do not need to become poster children to try to make you feel better about yours."

It seems to me that what is currently in the article is an accurate paraphrasing of what was stated in the source. That is the only reason I have restored it. If you have sources that dispute this, please provide them and we can discuss how to cover all significant viewpoints published by reliable sources with respect to their weight. PraetorianFury (talk) 16:37, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Boobquake[edit]

I'm not sure this should be in 'see also' as it has no redeeming features and frankly is a waste of Wikipedia web space. Next time Jimbo Wales begs me for money i'll have to remind him of this.Oxr033 (talk) 00:13, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

The association has been published.Novangelis (talk) 21:23, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Are we really still arguing about this?[edit]

Really? I thought we had a solution that everyone could live with. If the prose list was so horrible, why didn't you say something before? You really don't need to try these subversive editing techniques as if I'm a bad faith editor. Here I am, trying to work with you. Let's talk about it.

In response to your summary, yes, Wikipedia is a link farm, in a way. Despite the faith and work you put into it, Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source, not even by Wikipedia. So if we want to present information with any shred of credibility, it absolutely must be a link to something that is considered reliable. Opinion pieces, borderline promotional articles, and primary sources really do us no favors, and these are sources we've relied on heavily throughout the article. The original source for the global statement mentioned only 3 continents, 2 of those being socially liberal continents. This is not global. But by adding a list that really does span nearly every continent, we provide a much stronger and easily verifiable case for the reach of the SlutWalk rallies. And that's really all we're here to do, to inform in a verifiable way.

I understand that the list might look "ugly" to you, but Wikipedia is not about beauty, it is about utility. We are a reference. Your aesthetic tastes have a lower priority than the credibility of our information. PraetorianFury (talk) 22:46, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Minor wording change proposal[edit]

I propose changing "The protest takes the form of a march, mainly by young women, where some dress as sluts in revealing attire." to "The protest takes the form of a march, mainly by young women, where some dress "like sluts" in revealing attire."

I propose this because the former statements reifies the exactly what SlutWalk is raising awareness about. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:54, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Good point, go for it. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:01, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
I think SlutWalk is trying to say there is nothing wrong with the word "slut." Putting it in quotes suggests that there still is, and that it is an epithet that has shameful implications. Quite a detail, I know! Can you make your point a little more clearly? I think that the word without quotes makes SlutWalk ideology concrete in a way that they would approve of. In the link "reify" has a number of meanings and possible ways of using it - did you mean "concretise" as I have assumed? Hyper3 (talk) 16:53, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
I meant Reification (fallacy). There is no such thing as a "slut", it's just a shaming label used. But I guess the reason I want to change the sentence is that my immediate question when I read it was "how do sluts dress?" It would be wrong to say that revealing attire enough to be labelled as a slut or that all sluts wear revealing attire. By adding the quotation marks and the word "like", I was trying to show that this is not a real, objective thing, but what other says. They dress in attire that matches stereotypes of sluts. Slut costumes if you will.
I'm trying to think of another, simpler way of saying it but can't think of anything that isn't overly wordy. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:30, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Isn't "reclaiming" the word slut a reification per se: by subscribing to it they seek to disarm it? A comedic version of "slut" (wearing revealing attire) stands for sexual promiscuity; yet the shame is denied by being proud instead of repentant? Hyper3 (talk) 20:58, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Cities and harassment[edit]

Hello, I corrected the links and list of cities (also added Buenos Aires), and added a headline on the sexual harassment episode which took place in Brazil. Luxxxbella (talk) 13:41, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Someone deleted the harassment part so I re-added it. Could anybody explain why an episode of sexual harassment during a march against sexual harassment would not be relevant in an article regarding the movement which organised the march against sexual harassment?

If there is any other policy I'm overlooking, please be so kind to poit it out so I can learn! Luxxxbella (talk) 13:23, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

The policy you are overlooking is a part of Verifiability specifically reliable sources. The sources used are not considered reliable, such their content can not be added to the article, which is why it was removed. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:00, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
I still think it is kinda weird to say a video of things happening is not "verifiabile", I read all the way through the policy and it does not seem to refer to any content which can be documented via multimedia (pictures, videos). However that may be, I added a link to O Globo, the brazilian newspaper which published the case. Do you think that'll make it? Luxxxbella (talk) 15:39, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm at work so I can't watch the video, however I can give you a hypothetical why it might be removed. If the video is raw footage of the incident, then including it would probably be considered Original Research. We as wikipedia editors should not engage in analysis of events, what we do is record what is being said in reliable sources. A raw video of the incident does not describe anything, and using it as a source adds a meaning to it that may not be in the source itself. Does this help? --Kyohyi (talk) 15:56, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, it does indeed! Thanks. I went through the policy again and got to a simmilar conclusion: that a video is more like "original research", plus we have no proof that the title of the video is actually related to the content itself. Thanks again! Luxxxbella (talk) 16:35, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Here are the problems I have with this section:
  • The event itself is of dubious significance. Is this the only time a guy has flashed the people at these rallies? Are we only concerned with flashers and not other forms of harassment? Where do you draw the line? Should we include a list of every incident for every rally? What makes this event so significant that we have to include it on Wikipedia?
  • The supporting opinions are taken from random damning internet forums, this is such amazingly bad journalism I don't even know what to say.
  • The sources are trivially unreliable, Facebook and Youtube are not considered reliable sources here. A reliable source might be CNN or the BBC, etc. From our policy on reliable sources: "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Do Facebook and Youtube have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? You might argue that they're being used as primary sources, but we can't stitch together primary sources to make a point, as that would be synthesis of materials, also against policy.
You're approaching this completely backwards. You have something you want to say and you're hunting for sources to support it. What you should be doing is reading sources and deciding what you want to say based on that. And when I say, "read sources", I don't mean lurking on the worst and most offensive forums you can find. Find us some reputable organizations who thought this flasher was so significant to cover it themselves. Before you go restoring these sections again, we need two things established:
  1. That the event is significant enough to warrant coverage here. This means multiple third party sources covering it.
  2. If you want it to seem like a debate between two sides, you need to establish that there are two sides by finding actual informed opinions by notable people, not GetBackToTheKitchenololTroll69. Otherwise this would get one sentence max, as part of another section.
PraetorianFury (talk) 18:27, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
First thing first, this is the first article at Wikipedia I'm editing ever. I have gone through all the basics but this is my first time applying them in a real field. Just so nobody takes personal or finds bias in what is only trying to learn.
  • The event itself is of dubious significance. Is this the only time a guy has flashed the people at these rallies? Are we only concerned with flashers and not other forms of harassment? Where do you draw the line? Should we include a list of every incident for every rally? What makes this event so significant that we have to include it on Wikipedia?
I understand the importance of all these questions, though right now I can only attempt to answer the last: it makes it significat because a. it shows the exact behavior the Slutwalk is protesting against b. It is a broadly known response to feminist virtual and real-file actions (so I thought it would be no surprised it also happened at the slutwalk. I haven't haunted all pages about feminist protests, I made an assumption. My bad. New at this.
  • The supporting opinions are taken from random damning internet forums, this is such amazingly bad journalism I don't even know what to say.
It is interesting you mention it. I intended to relate this to whatever content was available on wikipedia related to online mobbing. It turned out there was none. However I was still wrong on this, because in search for mobbing I should have done the opposite: same kind of comments in (well, almost any)other context or wahtever... anyway, seems thee's not enough room yet for that either. I can live with that.
  • The sources are trivially unreliable, Facebook and Youtube are not considered reliable sources here.
Glad to know. Funnily enough I work om media and in most local media (at least) Facebook and Twitter "are" considered reliable sources when they are an official entity or a public figure. Again, I shouldn't have assumed it would be so in here, but it never came to my mind till someone pointed it out.
You're approaching this completely backwards. You have something you want to say and you're hunting for sources to support it.
Haha, I think you may be at least partly right on this one. It's not really something I "want" to say, it's just something I thought was relevant enough to be shared -isn't that what brought us all herer in the first place? ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luxxxbella (talkcontribs) 00:01, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
I feel like I should apologize, I was at work when I saw your edits and a little drained of energy, so my response was a little more blunt than I think was necessary. I am a little annoyed that I had to "be the bad guy" when so many other editors are watching this page, but whatever. No worries on being new, when I first got here about 5 years ago, I made all kinds of mistakes and wasn't as adaptive as you're being, so nice job on that.
Here's why I find the section on this incident particularly troubling: WP:WEIGHT. It's not only our job to report the facts on Wikipedia, our readers rely on us to put things in perspective. If you just want to know what's happening in the world, you can read the news. But that's not what we do here. We are an encyclopedia so we should be attempting to write articles from a historical perspective. Will history remember the time that one guy flashed the feminists at a Slutwalk rally and some internet trolls lauded him for it? I really don't think so. Now if you had a bunch of people repeating this story all over the place, that would be significant. Especially if they were activists in or critics of the rallies. But what I've seen so far implies this was an isolated and insignificant incident, even if it seems like the perfect example of the issues women face. IMO if we reported this incident, we would be exaggerating its importance and giving the impression that things are more dire than they actually are (IE women can't even rally without getting flashed all the time!). Newspapers and sites thrive on doom and gloom, but we should be better than that. If something is bad, we should say it's bad. If it's not bad, we should say it's not bad.
Weight is something that is kind of subjective here, and people battle about it all the time, so it's much easier to talk about something more black and white: the sources. Good sources are mainstream encyclopedias, news sites, experts in the field, etc. We can't go around collecting quotes from random forums because then you could stitch together some of the worst comments and completely twist reality. There are racists and sexists and nazis floating around out there, but we don't cover their opinions as if they are common. Opinions present in the article must have some special significance. My personal test for significance is whether or not the speaker has a Wikipedia article already. IE if you want to include what someone has said, Wiki them; if they have an article already, they are probably significant enough to mention. It's not perfect, but it has worked for me. So in this case, what happens when you try to find notable people talking about the incident? Can you find any actually supporting this guy's actions? If, as I suspect, you can't, that should tell you that things aren't nearly as bad as the section was implying.
PS: I used to believe like you that using YouTube as a primary source was fair game, but the counter-argument was that YouTube videos can be modified or labeled in such a way that is misleading or false. Same with Facebook. If you have no choice but to use them, that should imply something about the significance of whatever you're trying to report. PraetorianFury (talk) 06:38, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I get the whole picture now (and makes so much sense!). I still think (personally) the event is worth mentioning, but I promise to stick to re rules :D Thanks for takig the time to explain! 190.30.132.232 (talk) 11:42, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

On the "Slutwalk answer" section[edit]

This is clearly an editor's response and merely repeats the same points that are made elsewhere in the article. If members of the movement responded to these comments specifically, then it would be appropriate to create a section or paragraph for the Slutwalk "answer". But they didn't. This is an editor deciding that this comment is an appropriate refutation. And IMO it's not an appropriate refutation at all, because it misses the entire meaning behind the comments, specifically that dressing sluttily is risky, and while not an invitation for rape or blame, is still a bad decision in some situations. But this is besides the point, putting these two sections back to back falsely implies dialog where there was none. PraetorianFury (talk) 18:39, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not arguing on what you say, I just though the "Responses" section (which is actually more like "criticism" as was also argued in this page earlier) was sort of outweighting the description of the movement itself and attempted to add a point of view. Is it not "unbalanced" that the criticism of the movement takes more space than the movement itself (this was also a reason I posted the harassment episode as well)?
And while we are at it, "dressing sluttily is risky" is the exact fallacy the Slutwalk is protesting against -it is kind of unbalanced to leave the response unanswered.
So, anyway, any ideas on how do we balance the content?Luxxxbella (talk) 00:15, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
I did notice that the point you were trying to make wasn't reported clearly in the article, I just have a problem with it being formatted as if it was part of a conversation that never happened. Additionally, the Daily Mail isn't a very good source, so I've found a different one from a more reliable paper, The Independent: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/women-mobilise-for-first-british-slutwalk-rally-2281611.html
As I'm looking at the article now, it looks like you're right. Responses to the rallies are taking up more than half the article. So I've created a new section for objectives of the rallies which I think is a more appropriate place to put explanations and justifications. It's pretty bare bones at the moment, with the opinion of just one of the rallies, so if you would like to expand it a bit, I think this would be a perfect place. PraetorianFury (talk) 06:54, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes! Absolutely this! Will have to really check my sources this time, though :D
Also, do you think -with due time and sources- we could add a section about the differences among the Slutwalks? Because it's not actually a vertical movement, each city organises independently. This would show some of the diversity which is also questioned in the responses below. 190.30.132.232 (talk) 12:06, 3 October 2013 (UTC)Luxxxbella (talk) 13:19, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
That sounds like a really good idea actually. There's been a bit of a dispute over how to handle the list of Slutwalks. One editor would prefer no list at all, while I feel it's necessary to establish that the movement is truly "global". If you can turn the list into actual text, that would be ideal. PraetorianFury (talk) 16:27, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
I have seen the discussion over the list, I even corrected some links in the section "India and the World" on the article itself but someone pushed the cities list down to the links and references section. That certainly doesn't help balancing the content, and I don't think it's correct to not have one single city lited in the article apart from Toronto, considering the movement did start in Canada, but quickly spread to the world and rallys soon became annual in many places (there are at least two slutwalks in different countries today!)
However, I think even that list is incomplete, since there are links in the talk page not reflected on it, and eI added Buenos Aires and I don't see it either (I'm pretty sure I used a local newspaper to support, I could easily look it up again). I could work on that.
Do you think it would be ok to add sub-sections for the continents, and then list the cities and countries in them? Or else, we could change "India and the wold" for "Rest of the world" and list all cities there... Luxxxbella (talk) 13:19, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm tempted to restore the list now that there are two editors supporting its inclusion and one arbitrarily denying it, buuuut...I don't wanna escalate things worse and get a full blown edit war here. So I think if you have something to say besides listing the cities, then sure, that would be completely appropriate. Maybe review the links given and just give us a little extra information about each. I think that would satisfy everyone. PraetorianFury (talk) 09:16, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Let's talk about the "Responses" section[edit]

I think we do agree the responses to the Slutwalk are taking as much -if not actually more- space as the description of the movement. As we work on that, I would like to take a closer look at the responses themselves. I'm not talking about sources (yet), but I'd like to know where we're standing.

1. "Risk-management" I already stated I feel uncomfotable having this as a response, when actually the SlutWalk IS the response to that sort of logic. But lately I've realised where that weird feeling came from: IT'S A LIE.

This approach implies that women dressing in a "slutty" way are more likely to be sexually assaulted (hence the "risk-prevention" part). Well, that's not misguided, nor manipulated, nor an "iffy" cisrumstance: 82% of victims are raped by someone they knew, and usually trusted, meaning the way they dressed was hardly important (here are the 911 statistics: http://www.911rape.org/facts-quotes/statistics). This leaves the "strangers in the alley risk" in about 18% of the "real risk". Proposing that women should never get engaged in romantic relationships and never trust males, would be equally sexist but about 60% more efficient in actually preventing sexual assault. I am also concerned that this "argument", however well sourced it may be, is considered a reasonable question on women attepmting to explain that it's a myth, not a fact. Facts are on the ladies on this one, I think (I hear other opinions too, of course). 2. Trivialising approach I think this one deserves a little more investigation. Several slutwalks around the world (and that's why I insist on mentioning them as well) are not just "walks" but actual organizations, which take action on serveral different problems, not just the "sluttyness" itself. 2. Culturally insensitive Same as before, I think slutwalks around the world are colorful and divese in this aspect, and also the Slutwalk has been appropiated by all and any woman in the world who thought on this as a tool rather than an imposition. I'm not looking to argue about this, just saying that showing a bit more on what slutwalk actually is will balance the "toronto-centrism" of the critics. 3. Male-defined vocabulary I think this is a candent debate, even within the movement. I think the re-apporpibation of words is a technique which can be criticised for this, so this is not actually a reaction to the slutwalk in particular. Also, I object this statement placed all the way to the top, right after the description of the movement. Is it common practice to place such critics as part of the description? If so, I think it is needed to add the fact that Slutwalks are giving "slut" the slightly-different approach of identifying "slut" with a term used when a woman acts on her own free will. Otherwise it would sound like they never thought about the question and just went on to call themselves whatever someone else was caling them. Also, I find it very strange to state that " Of the four names suggested (Slutwalk, End the Shame, Yes Means Yes and Shame Stop), SlutWalk remained the favourite, though half the voters had voted against the old name." This is a very common thing to happen when people vote! Voting is about getting more votes than the rest, not about an absolute majority (with some exceptions). Even if the source does mention the matter, I fail to see how it is relevant to anything at all (doesn't even sound as a relevant fact for voting either!). 4. Pornification I would like to see more information on "why" they consider it "pornification", for instance, and I would like to add many Slutwalks instruct their participants to "dress as they feel comfortable", so the "pornification" goes on the individuals who feel lik it. So, these are a few thoughts on this, I'll go on looking up good sources for any information on the Slutwalks.Luxxxbella (talk) 13:55, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Luxxxbella - Wikipedia is not the place to carry on the debate about SlutWalk - merely to represent it clearly. The responses section documents a variety of responses to the phenomenon. It is not really relevant whether you agree with them, and in order to remove any of them you would need to demonstrate that they were not based on reliable sources. Any contributions must represent a neutral point of view - your essay above shows that you may be too involved with one side of the debate to contribute here helpfully. Are you willing to be impartial? Hyper3 (talk) 20:33, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Generally we would avoid making decisions about what to put in the article based solely on the opinions of editors, or at least, we wouldn't say that's why we're making the changes ;). There's a culture on Wikipedia of preservation of information and "covering the debate" especially for a contentious issue like this. So while you'll probably never get consensus to outright delete some of these criticisms of the Slutwalks, what you can do is add more material to balance them out. So I think it would be a good idea for you to do some more research, and see if you can find some responses to those criticisms. Don't let these recent setbacks hold you back. Please continue to be bold and we'll work with you to improve the article. PraetorianFury (talk) 09:28, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
PF - seems like we agree abount something! :) Hyper3 (talk) 17:15, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I get what you're saying and maybe I haven't made myself clear enough.
I get that it's not about our opinions or debating. I was trying to get help on understanding wiki policies and somehow got lost in the process... I'm not trying to argue against these points of view, nor am I looking for their deletion, just to understand how am I wiki-allowed to work on them.
I'll try to re-phrase, if you don't mind.
1. "Risk-management" There is no factual evidence that a woman's dress has ever, anywhere actually prevented any risk related to rape. In a way, I sense it is much like adding a response to "Boobquake" from a respected journalist who stated in the news that "boobs DO cause earthquakes!". Are the facts behind the sayings relevant, or someone saying it out loud in the news is enough? If it's ok for everyone, I'm more than fine with it, I'm just trying to understand how it works.
2 and 3: These are critics which point at the diversity of the movement. I was wondering if it wasn't depriving the article of neutrality to include responses to its (lack of) diversity, but not acknowledge it in the article, not even in the shape of a list (which we agreed to work on, and I will, but I want to know if I'm viewing it the right way).
4. I think this would also require adequate balance, which I think we're in the process of solving with the new "objectives" section.
As a final note, I do realise it's a subject I find deeply interesting, and still (or "because of it") I'm more than willing to work on neutrality and balance. I know this might also be a very sensitive subject to test my (lack of) expertice, but I find it exciting as well and promise to do my best to keep things in line. Thanks for bearing with me this far :) Luxxxbella (talk) 12:29, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
1: You say, "there's no factual evidence", but according to whom? You? You could say the same thing about religion, but we cover all kinds of evidence-less stuff with regards to religion. We don't report criticisms because they are true, we report them because they are notable. And if a criticism is notable and not true, usually there is a counter-criticism which we would then include to balance it. Rather than deleting things you believe are nonsense, trust that reality is its own advocate, and the truth will always present itself as more believable.
2 - 3: I think once we have a bit more to say about the many varied rallies, that will solve this problem.
4: Personally, I think this is an example of the divide between sex-positive and sex-negative feminists. Sex-negative feminists will oppose anything sexual and these rallies are no exception. But I digress. Again, my opinion of how silly it is doesn't matter, it is a notable criticism so we should cover it. If there are counter-criticisms or refutations, feel free to include them.
PraetorianFury (talk) 17:12, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Awesome, I think I'm actually getting somewhere :D
As I said before, it is not my intention to convince anyone of deleting anything. Actually, I think what you mention hits exactly the point. Let's suppose I do come across a reliable source on why clothes do not affect rape rates in any significant manner. Even though I'm confident I can find it, it is also likely it won't be related to the Slutwalk, and even less likely that it's an answer to that specific response. And that's where I'm not sure on where would I be allowed to place the evidence. Not after the response, I guess, but would it be admissible all the way to the top, right after the words of Sanguinetti? Or somewhere in the middle? Or does it also depend on the kind of sources I find? Also, still supposing I find good material disproving these sayings, does it affect the possible neutrality of the article, or is this considered a minor detail? I'm not trying to get specific answers for this, but maybe someone can point me in the right direction. I just wouldn't like to start adding information in a misguided way, which would end up with me asking stuff here anyway...
The rest of the points are covered by now I guess.
I just feel like saying it one more time: I'm not pushing to get anything deleted, I don't want to undo anyone's work, and I'm not trying to insert my personal point of view in the article. I just want to edit and add interesting accurate information on the subjects I care about (I honestly don't see myself spending days of research on screwdrives or exotic kinds of insects or whatever). I'm sorry for the times I miss the point, it's just that I find this so interesting and fun to do! Thank you. Luxxxbella (talk) 13:42, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
I think it would be great to find quotes that address the responses to Slutwalk currently in the article. Unfortunately, they do have to have a reference to Slutwalk or else it is WP:SYN. It could be placed in a different article that is directly about, say, clothing and rape, and a hyperlink used to lead to that article. Hyper3 (talk) 14:29, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
I see, I think I understand. Sounds good for me, since I've found something I was not expecting: clothing is hardly related to rape rates, but it is directly linked to victim-blaming from others. It does sound like there could be a nice, independent article on the subject (and I could give you all a break as well, haha)Luxxxbella (talk) 14:45, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Also, keep in mind that this is not the only article related to rape and sexual abuse. It is not our responsibility to cover every aspect of that discussion on that page. This page is specifically for Slutwalks, and only material related to that. What you're describing might be a more appropriate addition to Causes_of_rape, or other related articles. We don't have to cover everything on every page. If you can find sources to support your conclusion, I'd be shocked if it wasn't already on Wikipedia somewhere. PraetorianFury (talk) 16:24, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Well, you're absolutely right about that. The reason I focused on that particular saying in this article is that, given it's the reason the whole thing started, I think it's only fair to document it as accurately as possible. I'm sure it is not the same thing to read an article which acknowledges the saying to be a myth, than an article which doesn't. I know my personal rules don't apply, so I'll be happy to find a way to add the information in a legitimate way (I ended up finding more material related to Slutwalk and sexual assault statistics than I expected at first). Thanks for the adivice! I'll be checking out a few different articles, that might also give me a wider view of what I'm trying to do.Luxxxbella (talk) 20:32, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I felt like adding here a note regarding my latest edits.

I think the "Inception" section now reflects much more accurately the nature of Sanguinetti's sayings, and therefore, the "risk-management" bullsh... statements :D

I digged up information from all sources which were already in the article. Maybe if we had documented the facts with equal zeal as the criticism, the article would have been balanced (and accurate) all along.

Please let's keep that in mind in the future. Luxxxbella (talk) 02:13, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Responses to responses[edit]

Although not looking specifically for responses, I did find this article which mentions and addresses a few of the arguments in the "Responses" section. Is this source good enough to add information to the "Responses" section? (No problem if it's not, I actually was searching for information on global manifestations... but if it's good I think it's worth adding) Luxxxbella (talk) 13:17, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Well using my test, if we wiki "F-word", sure enough we come up with The F-Word (feminist blog). In my experience, if a website's article has managed to survive the extremely skeptical editors who watch for new article creation, that website is good enough to cite for its opinion. I've got no problems with this one. PraetorianFury (talk) 16:26, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
~does the I'm-a-newbie-and-did-something-right dance~
I'll keep your test in mind for the future!
Luxxxbella (talk) 18:14, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Photos[edit]

So I added a photo I happened to take (just happened to be at the location) at a 'slutwalk' in Chicago:

Attendees of the 2013 Chicago Slutwalk

user:PraetorianFury messaged me that my photo had been removed from the article by user:Hyper3, so i added it again, and User:Hyper3 suggested that we discuss it here, which i think is a good idea. As it stands now, there are only a few photos that illustrate the article. I agree that the current layout (as of the moment that I am posting this) it does look cluttered. I am a big fan of the arrangement of this article with each section having one photo and each photo being displayed on the left and the right as the user scrolls down the page. It makes for easy reading and easy viewing.

user:Hyper3, as it stands right now there are 4 photos in the article including mine. Looking on commons there are a few more photos that may work to illustrate the topics covered in the article (if the Milennium Park article I like so much is to be something of a guideline here). I don't think that all these sections we have photos for yet, but I do think that we could arrange the photos we do have better to illustrate the article. There are images on commons from Brazil, Chicago, London, Knoxville, Toronto, Tel Aviv, San Francisco and possibly more. And here are the topics they could be illustating (with my suggestions):

1 History (perhaps File:Toronto-Slutwalk.jpg since it is historic and illustrates the first event) 1.1 Inception 1.2 First march and consequent growth 1.3 India and the world (perhaps a triple image should go here, with as much geographic diversity, to illustrate the variation in geography?) 2 Objective of the Rallies 3 Responses 3.1 Risk management 3.2 Trivialising approach 3.3 Culturally insensitive 3.4 Male-defined vocabulary 3.5 Pornification 4 References 5 External links

I think that it is important to mention that my interest in this is not per the content of the article , but more that the article is illustrated effectively. Before i happened across the event in Chicago, I had no idea that such an event existed. I looked on Wikipedia and I saw that there was a section about the article that said that there was a world movement to this and I only saw one photo of a march in New York City, and I thought that my photo might illustrate a broader movement int he section that it is appropriate towards. However looking at it now, I think that the images I list above world work and the images of the 4 women's backsides and the little girl would not work, but that's just my opinion!

user:Hyper3, what do you think? Would you like to assist me in this effort to better arrange the photos to illustrate the topic?Victor Grigas (talk) 03:17, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I think the article has the maximum number of photos required. I think that one photo illustrating the inception with a march theme, one representing nudity in protest, one illustrating the counter point of view is enough. We cant have a picture from each venue. The very helpful quote boxes make it difficult to add more without it becoming cluttered or hard to read in some browsers. Hyper3 (talk) 07:46, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
I agree about the quote boxes, but i disagree about the photos - what if an image like this exists:
Slutwalks around the world
Slutwalk Toronto, Canada 2012
Slutwalk in Tel Aviv
Slutwalk in Munich
Brazil Slutwalk

Victor Grigas (talk) 19:06, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Of course many possible illustrative photos exist - but what do they add to the article? Its a march - that only takes one photo to make the point. Then we are looking to illustrate the rest of the debate. Putting too many in makes it cluttered. Please refer to WP:LAYIM as it is the guideline we should use. We might also consider WP:IG as a way of adding more - but these particular photos would be repetitive and fail to add to our understanding. Hyper3 (talk) 01:31, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
WP:LAYIM does not apply to galleries such as Victor's example, and a gallery for a topic can definitely add to our understanding, by showing that substantial marches take place in different countries. Your point would be valid against multiple photos from the exact same event, but Victor's example is not that, and genuinely adds to the encyclopedic value IMHO. MartinPoulter (talk) 20:17, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
WP:IG suggests that a link to Wikimedia Commons is more appropriate when a gallery would end up being labelled "images of [article title]" rather than something more descriptive. Hyper3 (talk) 10:50, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I just added a photo for Brasilia Slutwalk, since the article looked a little bare after I've been expanding the text. I selected that particular image because Brazil is one of the countries with most Slutwalks (at least within Latin America), its section has the longest text, and it illustrates the Catholic-themed costumes mentioned in the text. Any comments welcome :) Luxxxbella (talk) 02:02, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi again, I added an image from Costa Rica as well, with a sign relative to the sayings which sparked the protests in that country. I think there's still room in the article for one or two more images without it becoming image-crowded, but unfortunately I haven't seen many more in Wikimedia Commons which might be meaningful. I'm still working on adding information of the movement worldwide, so it's also possible we will need to add a few more images as the volume of text increases? Luxxxbella (talk) 14:42, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

"Balance" in the lead?[edit]

Ok, here's the question: is there some special sort of balance considered for the lead? or also: is it actually considered balanced to give space to specific criticisms on the lead?

I would tend to believe (from my Wikipedia-outsider criteria) such a short (or not-so-long) article might actually be unbalanced if criticism is given a space/importance nearly as much as the description of the movement itself. This kinda happened in the body of article (not so much now, I believe), so I would also think this should be taken into account when balancing the lead. If I'm too much off the mark, all guidance is helpful :)

In search for a reference point, I went to the articles for Boobquake, FEMEN and Take Back The Night for a view of simmilar articles. All of them include responses or criticism, but none in the lead -it only contains the description of the movement. I also tried a different topic, and went to see Greenpeace, which has its own page for Criticism of Greenpeace as well as a Criticism section inside the article. The space given to criticism in the lead is one final sentence in a four paragraph description, and it mentions no specific responses, only acknowledges controversy and legal actions against the organization.

I'm not against having criticism or controversy mentioned in the lead, but I do believe stating specific criticism (as male-definde vocabulary and pornification) in the lead makes it look like it's at least as important as the movement (which is worldwide, unlike most of the critics. Just sayin' :P).

I believe a sentence acknowledging criticism/responses/controvery would be much more suitable. Luxxxbella (talk) 23:47, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Luxxx - the best way to establish these things is by going to the Manual of Style: WP:MOS where there are links to artices in more detail - in this case MOS:LEAD. This is also how any disputes should be solved. Going to other articles is unfortunately not necessarily a great a way of finding out how to do things. in the lead paragraph (of the article on lead paragraphs!) it says:"The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies." Hyper3 (talk) 09:18, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Just to avoid misunderstandings, I'm not trying to fund my position on what I find on other articles, I'm only trying to be proactive in finding examples on how the rules apply.
I think our disagreement right now may reside in what we consider "prominent" controversies. Editors at Greepeace seem to think a whole lot controversy is only prominent enough for a short, general sentence. I know it's not about them, but I'd like a view on why you think specific criticism is so vital in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luxxxbella (talkcontribs) 13:14, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
The lead summarises what the article says: therefore we are looking to recap all the verifiable material that has been collected so far. It appears that two important parts of the SlutWalk story are the reclaiming of the word slut in the face of slut-shaming, and the acting out of this idea on the marches by wearing clothes that reference the word "slut." The responses to these ideas are that this is allowing male-defined vocabulary to dominate, and that protest using nudity is a further demonstration of the sexualization of modern Western culture. This is currently only one sentence at the end, and it may be necessary to add further to this in order to truly summarise the article - particlarly the cultural sensitivity material. The "prominence" of these ideas can be found in the fact that this is overwhelmingly what the media turns to when it discusses SlutWalk, and therefore this is the material we have to work with. This may seem unfair to the movement that wants to talk about other things, but we can only use what verifiable sources give us. Hyper3 (talk) 16:45, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
I get what you're saying.
I would like to begin with a disclaimer: I have no problem with criticism. Social and political movements are my area of study, and I understand responses from society are key to understanding those movements. I'm not picking into criticism because I don't like it, but because it is what appeared to me as unbalanced when I first read this article, and I thought I might help (and create a little mess, why not :)
I agree on the description you make of the article at the moment; however, I think the article right now is lacking due weight because criticism has been documented with somehow more detail than the movement istelf. For a short example, there were answers to Sanguinetti's sayings from both the Police Chief (i.e. his boss) and co-foundr Barnett, which were not in the text. I found them on the sources which were already in the article, I didn't need to look any further. Not only that, but those sayings (especially the Chief's) were key to understanding the "Risk-management" criticism. I don't know if adding this information was fair to the movement, but I do think it was fair to the article.
I would also point out that SlutWalk is not actually a debate (as in evolusion-crationism) with two parts in it, but a social movement which is critiziced (as in, there would be no criticism if there wasn't SlutWalk in the first place). So I would expect such an article to have a properly detailed description of the movement, at least as detailed as the criticism. Especially if we surely have sources for that :)
Here's my offer: let's work together.
I have been gathering information from what I think are acceptable sources (I would like us to take into account Anglo-American focus and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias for a more complete and accurate article) and my intentions are expanding the article with a more detailed view of the different SlutWalks around the world.
We can work together on completing the article, and we can probably get new criticism and/or responses from all those sources.
What I would propose then, is that we leave a general sentence on the lead while we work, and once we have a better article, we can redo the lead altogether, if we please, and I won't mind us stating specific criticism in a balanced way.
What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luxxxbella (talkcontribs) 12:59, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
(I also forget to sign posts) Luxxxbella (talk) 13:04, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
I think it would be good for the article to expand the description, as long as it doesn't become a long list of places where it happened! More on the narrative, better descriptions of the aims etc. When that has happened, the lead can be reviewed. Because the guidelines recommend it, at the same time the categories of controversy need to be updated to reflect their range. If you can find reliable sources that mention Slutwalk and respond to the criticism, it would make for a better article too. Hyper3 (talk) 22:31, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
"Because the guidelines recommend it, at the same time the categories of controversy need to be updated to reflect their range."
I'm not really sure what you mean... Luxxxbella (talk) 12:22, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
In answer, Ive just done it by adding a third important aspet of contoversy to the lead. Now I think the lead covers these issues adequately, although not yet equally. Reall a whole paragraph needs writing. Hyper3 (talk) 14:26, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Let me see if I got this straight: you are saying that by noting every bit of criticsm in the article as well as the lead, we follow WP:NPOV .
However, you also say we cannot add even a short and incomplete list of the cities around the world because of WP:LAUNDRY (even when the project itself states: The goal of Wikiproject:Laundromat is to scrub laundry lists from articles when they detract from an article's usefulness, and to salvage usable content from those laundry lists into readable, encyclopedic text. A list is sometimes the best way of presenting detailed material; this project is not intended to remove such lists.)
I find it hard to see how this combination can result in a balanced article, and I see two practical consequences to it:
1. The article looks like it was written by someone way more interested in criticism than in the movement itself.
2. It's very much likely to disappoint a person who's looking for information on international Slutwalks, which is why I'm bringing forward WP:BIAS (also applies for 1, actually)
I'm personally much more interested in improving the article than in discussing with you (or anyone for that matter), and I don't mind doing all the research and adding all information on my own. I'm also not bothered by the criticism in the lead- I really don't care that much.
But I will take my chances and ask: are you willing to be impartial? Luxxxbella (talk) 22:17, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I have found that no matter what my own personal opinion on any subject may be, that keeping to the guidelines creates an impartial article. Therefore I like to confine my comments to that. It is an asset to find someone else who is interested in the article enough to do some research on both the topic and wikipedia guidelines. Please continue to do both. You have summarised more or less what I think the guidelines say (not entirely accurately, but then we get into the details). You are at liberty to challenge those points of view: however, I would suggest that you use the words and phrases found in the guidelines as evidence to show me where I have gone wrong. A closer reading of them often produces a better application.

I think that an encyclopedia article will disappoint anyone who expects it to agree with their point of view. If anyone wants information on current events, they should go to the organisation's website: this is not a role wikipedia is meant to fulfil. Equally, a list of every historic SlutWalk is not encyclopedic, hard to verify and boring to read. A link to a separate article called "cities that have hosted SlutWalk" that takes the form of a list might be considered notable enough to survive, but might not.

Please add further reliably sourced material to correct any problems that you see!!! Hyper3 (talk) 11:08, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

The list isn't hard to verify because we have citations for every city o.0, and we have all kinds of lists floating around Wikipedia. Lists of "historic" things are the very definition of encyclopedic. And what difference does it make if you think something is "boring"? There's lots of stuff on Wikipedia I think is boring but you don't see me removing it. I have no idea where you're coming from with that last paragraph.
Just a heads up, I'm re-deleting the bit on Aura Blogando as I wasn't able to verify the author's significance nor the site's reliability. Let me know if there's something I'm missing, which is entirely possible. PraetorianFury (talk) 05:20, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
I agree with PraetorianFury on the verifiablity of the list. I would add that protests from 2011 and 2012 (as are many SlutWalks not documented yet in the article but ready in verifiable sources) is hardly "current events", it's merely what SlutWalk is made of. Either that, or the whole SlutWalk movent is itself a current event. (Which is kinda why Wikipedia is so awesome... you can get encycolpedic material on current or even ongoing events)
I have added a template regarding the lack of worldwide coverage in the article.
How about we temporarily leave the list in the article, while I work on a better worldwide coverage? Luxxxbella (talk) 19:21, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Please do not remove the template, just like I'm not pushing the cities list back in the article. Let's talk about it first, then we decide :) You can also check WP:BIAS for a wider view of where this comes from. Luxxxbella (talk) 12:16, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Worldwide coverage[edit]

As you might have noticed, I added a section for Latin America. I selected Argentina and Brazil for being the countries with most Slutwalks (the alphabetical order also appealed to me), though I still have a few countries to add. Spelling, grammar and miscellaneous corrections are welcome :)

After Latin America, I'll dedicate some time to US and Canada, since those were the earliest walks and they are hardly mentioned at all. Then I'll move on to the rest of the world. There's lots of interesting stuff going on, mind you ;) Luxxxbella (talk) 23:12, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I just added a fragment on Singapore, just so my lack of time doesn't make the article look so much like one of a mainly Latinamerican movement. Luxxxbella (talk) 16:15, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I haven't had time to thoroughly review your most recent changes, and I'm going on a vacation pretty soon. After I'm back, if I have time, I'll give the article a complete once over and correct any problems I can find. PraetorianFury (talk) 18:30, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback, and have a great vacation! I'll be right here adding things for you to read when you're back :D Luxxxbella (talk) 02:06, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Split up/Spinoff article?[edit]

With the effort to get a more worldwide view (thank you ‎Luxxxbella), the article is starting to get a bit long. Might it be wise to create spinoff articles for various sections like, for example, "SlutWalk in Europe" and "SlutWalk in North America"? EvergreenFir (talk) 19:16, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

That shouldn't be necessary. What's actually needed is some editorial trimming. I question the need for multi-paragraph sections on individual countries. Roccodrift (talk) 21:44, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi! First of all, EvergreenFir you're very welcome, I'm actually having a lot of fun doing this :)
I do think the article is getting kind of long, and since I'm learning as I go I never thought of a split up, but I do think it would be a good idea. I also was starting to think it would be necessary to add an introduction to the Latin America section, explaining a bit the interactions and common practices, subjects and even common chants and rhymes across the countries. I could go for a more complete summary, though, and pass all the information currently in that section onto a specific article for Latin America, and then do the same with the rest of the regions, one by one.
Roccodrift at first I thought Latin America would only need a few paragraphs all in all, but the truth is I found much more information than I expected. I took into account this is a grassroots movement in which every city (not country, city!) organizes independently, and therefore an accurate local description would be relevant to the effect of documenting the worldwide diversity of the movement, which is also one of the goals of WP:BIAS.
Plus, it's all information from verifiable sources on the subject that's being discussed, I'd guess we would need a strong reason to leave it out, right? (unless I'm overlooking some rule again, which is absolutely possible, haha). If it's a matter of space, I believe a split up would most probably solve that problem, and sections on individual countries would make more sense in a separate Latin American article. What do you think? Luxxxbella (talk) 12:54, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
It's not a matter of space. It's more a matter of using your editorial prerogative to decide what's important enough to include and what's not, so as to find a good balance between a readable, usable article on the one hand... or including every scrap of information you can possibly obtain, on the other hand. Seriously, it's just not necessary to assemble an exhaustive list of every coffee klatch and knitting circle that was held in the name of Slutwalk, everywhere across the entire globe. To be sure, a balanced global view is highly desirable. But at some point you're going to need to trim it down to just the highlights, and I'd say you're pretty much at (or very near) that point already.
Also, if good quality, global coverage is your goal (and it clearly is), then I strongly encourage you to resist the temptation to create spin-off articles. If you do that, the U.S.-centric bias will creep back in and the quality of the other articles will suffer. This sort of regional article proliferation ultimately detracts from the cohesiveness and usability of the encyclopedia. It's a bad practice. Roccodrift (talk) 13:26, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
I get what you're saying and, believe me, I've left plenty of coffee klatches and knitting circles out of the text :D
However, I do think the local nature of the protests calls for a detailed view of each country, and we're talking of massive protests, ranging form hundreds to thousands of people in each city (there are exceptions below those numbers, but that's what they are: exceptions).
Regarding US-centrism, I think the only simmilar movement (worldwide grassrots protests spreading pretty fast across the globe through social networks) to this has been the Occupy Movement. I just checked that article and it seems to have achieved a good notion of worldwideness in the main article, and also allowed for more specific sub-articles (probably splitted from the main article?).
I also have the feeling that if spin-offs were that damaging, there wouldn't be a spin-off policy to begin with (but that's my feeling).
Also, are there any specific rules as to how long or detailed an article can/might/must be that would be relevant to this discussion? Luxxxbella (talk) 14:35, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Just FYI, I just finished adding all the information I had collected from Latin America. I'll move on to US and Canada (also called "Satellite" Slutwalks), and wanted to make sure if it's ok for you if I keep expanding the article while we discuss whether we'll split it, trim it or somewhere in between :) Luxxxbella (talk) 19:37, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
See WP:LENGTH for info. Roccodrift (talk) 21:07, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the shortcut :) I didn't find anything in WP:LENGTH regarding a required level of detail, and it actually points at WP:SPINOUT as the most desirable thing to do when an article gets too long. Furthermore, WP:RVREASONS gives no reason why the article should be trimmed, even supposing I was determined to record every single activity during the Slutwalks. The closest it gets is WP:IRRELEVANT, and the example given is a sentence about light bulbs in the article for tiger, which I honestly think is hardly simmilar to what I'm doing here. I am now convinced WP:SPINOUT is the way to go. Luxxxbella (talk) 00:53, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Ernesto Aguilar on Culturally insensitive[edit]

I was tidying up the Culturally Insensitive section, and realized it makes no sense to have a statement he Brazil and Honduras don't have a world for "slut" when they clearly found a satisfying replacement, as shown by the re-naming for Spanish and Portuguese. I wanted to keep the words and attribute them to Aguilar, who seemed to be author in the source, but I got a 404 error. Should I assume he's the author of the phrase? Luxxxbella (talk) 01:34, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, that was why I was asking this here, since the link in the reference returns a 404 not found. Or maybe it was just me not able to see it.
Whatever the case, it makes no sense as it is now, the text states: "countries including Brazil and the Honduras. No equivalent term for the word "slut" exists in these areas" without WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, since it clearly doesn't match all the other sources stating Latin Americans and even Indians found their own equivalent words for "slut"
Please let me know if I'm missing something. --Luxxxbella "There is no knowledge that is not power" 21:53, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Jeez, now you're starting to use shortcuts that I don't know. You're really drinking in all the policies you can find, aren't you? I think you're right. They've been using the word "puta" as a replacement, and it doesn't make a lot of sense to say no word exists. Give me a day to see if that newspaper gets back to me to see if it really makes no sense. Then I'll feel more comfortable deleting it. In the mean time, I'll add some disputed tags. PraetorianFury (talk) 00:10, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Hehe, what can I say, I'm curious and shortcuts are fun... you're making me blush :D
As for the text, I'm ok with it as it is right now. I figured since no one had answered here nobody cared and the reference simply wasn't there. (I totally need to keep checking my assumptions)
If the reference is valid but I can't see it, I take your word. I didn't want the article to be contradictory of itslef, but I don't mind records of people stating opposing things.--Luxxxbella "There is no knowledge that is not power" 03:17, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality[edit]

The sentence in the lede mentioning women speaking about "their rapes" implies through the use of the words "their rapes" that all these women are speaking about an actual event that is theirs. In fact, we cannot know if all of these stories describe actual events or not. All we know for certain is these are their stories of rape; insinuations that these stories are all true should be left out, not only because we can't verify the veracity of each and every one of them, it's also not neutral.

So far, no clear argument has been presented as to why allege--by definition, "to state without definite proof that someone has done something wrong or illegal"--is unacceptable for use in remedying the above issue. All that's been asserted in edit summaries is either untenable or simply a red herring, skipping completely over the whole point of avoiding false claims and maintaining neutrality.

(It is very poor form to remove maintenance tags notifying others that a part of an article is disputed and under discussion. Those who do so shouldn't throw out accusations of ownership, lest they appear hypocritical.) --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:48, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Apologies on that one, I thought I was reverting vandalism due to your previous 3RR [6] WP:EW Also please keep the conversation non-personal.
The reason for the phrasing is that the event is set up in order for women to speak out about rapes they have been through for the first time. Many of these women would not have previously had an opportunity to do so. Many of them could have definite proof that they have been through the rape, whereas allege, based on the definition you offered, suggests that many of them would not. This isn't a court case and the purpose isn't to falsely accuse men or other women of rape, whatever your opinion is on this. We are listing them as their stories, and challenging women who have possibly kept their history of previous sexual abuse is not the point of this article. Wikipedia doesn't exist to make independent research, and almost every reliable source discusses these incidents by taking the survivors word. I'm going to open this up for further debate, so please let this run its course before making further definitive edits as part of WP:CYCLE --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 22:08, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
@Miesianiacal: As we are not talking about specific individuals, I don't see a pressing need to verify that crimes occurred in terms of WP:BLP and WP:CRIME. We can verify, however, that they say they are rape survivors. They are not exceptional claims. You seemed to be mostly concerned with "the truth" (my words/interpretation), but we are not seeking the truth, only reporting what others have said. A secondary sources says they are rape survivors, then that's verified. Added "alleged" or other qualifiers is akin to scare quotes.
Anticipating a rebuttal, a quote from WP:ALLEGED:

Alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined, such as with people awaiting or undergoing a criminal trial; when these are used, ensure the source of the accusation is clear.

The issue here is that (1) there's no individual(s) being accused and (2) the source specifically says most crimes were not reported to the police. The source of the accusation is clear, but there is no target and thus no one to protect per WP:BLP. As such, we're back to WP:TRUTH and we must go with what the source says. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:13, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
For comparison, see Southern Poverty Law Center. We do not use "alleged" or "so-called" when referring to the groups they identify as hate groups because we are reporting on what they say, not the truth. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:18, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) This isn't about accusations being leveled or court cases. This is about information being presented by an encyclopaedia. Information is currently being presented in an unverifiable and non-neutral way. Saying these are stories of "their rapes" communicates that the rapes must all have happened, since the rapes are "possessed" by each of the story tellers. In fact, all we can say with certainty is the stories are possessed by the story tellers.
Perhaps using "allege" in the way I did wasn't the right approach, since it may assume the opposite: that all the stories are unproven. But, the sentence as it is is certainly presumptuous. It alleges that the referenced women have all described rapes that actually took place. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:37, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
@Miesianiacal: While I'm assuming your good faith and don't think you ill intentions, I have general concerns when we try to put "alleged" or other qualifiers in front of statements of sexual assault victimhood. This rarely seems to be an issue with other crimes; we seem to usually take people's word for it. Given what we know about sexual assault, rape culture, rates of false accusations, stigma, etc., I personally am of the "believe them" camp (doing my best not to get on a soapbox here). Just acknowledging my position on the issue.
I do see your general point though and assume others share it and am willing to compromise. Perhaps phrasing it something like "In many of the rallies and online, women speak publicly for the first time about their identity as rape survivors"? That would shift the meaning of the sentence to personal identity (which "survivor" is in many ways), includes the fact that they talk about life after their rapes and how its affected their lives, as well as move away from concerns about allegations and "truth" (again, my words; avoiding strawman as best I can). This wording would also jive with the sources. What do others think? Too vague or unclear? EvergreenFir (talk) 22:57, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Although I don't believe it should be changed, I think that's a good compromise. It moves the focus away from the crime itself, which I believe is what @Miesianiacal: is advocating, whilst also expressing why the survivors speaking out is noteworthy --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 00:56, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, I think I made it pretty clear that this is an npov issue, i.e. avoiding presenting an assumption as fact or letting personal beliefs skew article content. That this focuses on stories of rape shouldn't impede the requirement of neutrality. If this involved some other crime, the same principles would apply.
Regardless, the proposal is an improvement. I think, though, it could be condensed somewhat (by all of three words) to: In many of the rallies and online, women identify publicly for the first time as rape survivors. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:23, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't quite follow, what is the assumption that is being presented as fact? I think following the sources is probably the best way to achieve neutrality, rather than editing against them. I think the original phrasing by EvergreenFir is probably closer to what the sources suggest, as many identified as rape survivors previously to the event, but possibly didn't have the support in which to discuss their experiences. There is no assumption being made fact in that --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 03:55, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
I thought I was pretty clear already on what assumption was and is still being presented in the article as fact.
I don't see any difference between EvergreenFir's proposal and my own except mine is three words shorter. But, if you prefer the former, then, by all means, use it. I was merely trying to keep the lede compact. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:04, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
I kinda prefer my wording just a tad as it mentions the speeches. I'm going to add that into the lede since it seems we all agree the wording is good enough. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:08, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Looks good --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 19:33, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:42, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Discussion about RfC header[edit]

  • Comment. So, exactly what is the question being asked here? If there is no question, then perhaps the RfC header should be removed. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Mistake on my part, sorry I'm a relatively new editor. I thought the tag meant a request for comments rather than answers to a question. I will remove it now --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 00:40, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, yes, but an RfC is traditionally written in the form of a yes-or-no proposition, such as Should the article's lead include the word "alleged"? or Should unprosecuted rape cases be described as "alleged"? From there, outside views are brought in by volunteers invited by a bot. If you'd like to have more input, that's perfectly legitimate, but it would help to give a brief, neutral statement that describes the nature of the dispute, followed by a yes-or-no proposition. That would give volunteers an idea of what they're supposed to be discussing. Diffs help. Remember, they're unfamiliar with the situation and may have a short attention span. Nobody likes to see a page-long debate with an ambiguous section header; it means that you're going to have to spend an hour reading talk pages to understand what the issue is about. Instead, I suggest you start a new RfC, make the header a lot more descriptive and in the form of a yes-or-no question, and stick to 50 words or less to describe the situation neutrally and without accusations or advocacy. Then set aside a section for debate, where it won't form a wall of text. See WP:RFC#Example for the suggested layout. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:44, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, I'll keep all of that in mind for the next time I use this --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 15:11, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality of Responses section[edit]

At a first glance, the Responses section of this article seems to be majorly negative and critical of the movement, and may violate the WP:NPOV policy. Many of the words used also fail WP:WTW; I have edited a few of the sub-headings to make them more neutral. A quick Google search reveals multiple articles from feminist news media and other usable sources that are positive towards the movement. Does this section need to be rewritten? sst(conjugate) 15:20, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on SlutWalk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:49, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Racial sensitivity – more elaboration[edit]

Hello, I have really enjoyed your article and would like to point out that as a reader I would really appreciate it if you were a little more specific about the issues and facts raised in your “racial sensitivity” section. You state that “another author notes many black women opted to engage with SlutWalk, rather than reject it outright” I would like to know who that “other” author is but unfortunately you did not cite the source nor am I able to locate this claim anywhere else on the net. Please consider elaborating more on this claim and also provide us with a source that readers have the ability to refer back to. Thank you in advance!--Meme valentine (talk) 17:28, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on SlutWalk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:17, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^ "‘A Rally to find the slut in everyone’". The Sydney Morning Herald. 2011-05-29. Retrieved 2011-05-30.